Historical and Archeological Evidence
The Bible presents itself as history. Its historical validity can be judged in the same manner as any other ancient document. There are three tests to determine whether an ancient document can be trusted as history:
The bibliographic test. How many different copies exist, and how much time elapsed between the original writing and the first available copy? If numerous copies exist and all are essentially the same, it is likely that the original text has been preserved. The less time there is between a copy and the original, the more reliable it is considered to be. Most of the Bible was written by people who claimed to be eyewitnesses. First-hand information is the most reliable. It must be determined if the original accounts have been significantly altered or survive pretty much as written.
In most cases, relatively few copies of ancient documents exist and they were made long after the original. For example, there are 193 copies of the works of Sophocles. The earliest was written 1,400 years after the original. This is one of the largest numbers of copies associated with an ancient work of history. The New Testament, by comparison, is supported by over 24,000 different copies, the earliest of which was made only 25 years after the original. The New Testament has more bibliographic support than any other historical work of its time.
The last of the Old Testament was written in about 450 B.C., so it is significantly more ancient. There is less volume and antiquity of bibliographic support than for the New Testament. One of the Dead Sea scrolls is a complete copy of the book of Isaiah, believed to have been written in about 125 B.C. It is identical with the modern Hebrew Bible in more than 95% of the text. The remaining 5% are mostly variations in spelling. Because the Jews believed that the Bible was God's own word, they were meticulously careful about copying. Letters on each page were counted and proofread backwards and forwards. If any mistake was found, the document was destroyed and begun again.
Sir Frederick Kenyon, former director of the British Museum, said:
In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament. The last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed.
The internal test. This test determines whether the document contradicts itself internally. The Bible was written by numerous people over a period of about 1,500 years. I expected to find contradictions. Many of the questions I wrote down during my first read through the Bible had to do with apparent contradictions and things that didn't make sense on the surface. I was surprised to find out that most of them could be easily explained or resolved by looking closely at the context and cross-references. I well remember the first time I tried using a study Bible to check all of the cross references. I was amazed at the integrity I found, from cover to cover, over all those years and all those writers. That integrity and depth continues to amaze me and convince me that the Bible cannot have been written by humans on their own. Further study began to reveal patterns beneath patterns in the text. I compare it to one of those computer generated 3-D image posters that were so popular a few years ago. On the surface, it may look like nothing but squiggly lines, but when observed correctly, images pop out that are clear and unmistakable. Once you've seen them for yourself, it is impossible to later deny that they're there, even if you can't always see them clearly. Once I knew there was more to the Bible than met the eye, I became more and more interested in studying it. It is an intellectual challenge! The more I learn, the more amazed I am. The Bible is specific, historical, and remarkably different from all other books and writings that claim to be holy or inspired, many of which I've read myself.
The gospels are extremely consistent with one another by ancient standards, which are the only standards by which it is fair to evaluate them. They are supposedly written by one careful historian (Luke) and three different eyewitnesses to the events (Matthew, Peter through Mark, and John). If they were 100% consistent, they would be invalidated as copies rather than independent accounts. The authors of the gospels included information unfavorable to themselves. They had nothing to gain by publicizing their work except ostracism and martyrdom.
The external test. This test determines whether or not a document contradicts any external sources of historical fact. The more overlap there is with other documents written during the same time period, the more authentic a record is considered to be. The document must also be consistent with archeological discoveries. Over the years, archeologists have used the Bible to guide them to sites and civilizations that had been lost for millennia. Archeologist William F. Albright said, "There can be no doubt that archeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of the Old Testament." Of course, archeology cannot prove the Bible is true. It can, however, validate details. An author who takes care to include accurate incidental details is more credible than one who does not. Archeologists have sometimes been surprised to discover evidence of people thought to be Biblical legends.
There are many cases where other written histories have confirmed the accuracy of passages once doubted. Josephus, a Jewish historian writing around 70 A.D., mentioned not only Christ's death but his resurrection in Jewish Antiquities. He refers to Christ's brother James and the beheading of John the Baptist. One expert documented 39 ancient sources that corroborate more than one hundred facts concerning Jesus' life, teachings, crucifixion and resurrection. Later Jewish writers called Jesus a sorcerer, evidence that he did work miracles. Christianity took root in Jerusalem, where the mob had recently shouted, "Crucify him!" and where there would have been enough eyewitnesses to debunk any obvious lies.
Josh McDowell states:
After trying to shatter the historicity and validity of Scripture, I came to the conclusion that it is historically trustworthy. If one discards the Bible as being reliable, then he must discard almost all literature of antiquity. One problem I constantly face is the desire on the part of many to apply one standard or test to secular literature and another to the Bible. One needs to apply the same test, whether the literature under investigation is secular or religious.
I did not set out to disprove the Bible. I was neutral. I did not expect it to be anything other than a compiliation of human stories and laws. I am now convinced otherwise. I'm also confident that it hasn't degraded over the centuries. It's God's letter to mankind. He has protected its integrity.
Go on to read "The Bible Itself"
Source: www.SusanCAnthony.com, ©Susan C. Anthony